The Supreme Court recently expressed serious concerns over the Jharkhand High Court’s failure to pronounce judgment for more than two years in the case of M/s Mivaan Steels Limited v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited.
The case had been heard by the High Court and judgment was reserved on July 18, 2023, but no decision has been delivered till date.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma said that the delay by the High Court "shocked the judicial conscience".
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Mivaan Steels Limited.
The Supreme Court noted that the larger issue concerning delayed pronouncement of reserved judgments is already under consideration in a pending matter, which is scheduled to be taken up on November 14.
Hence, it directed to post the present matter along with it after obtaining appropriate orders from the Chief Justice of India.
The plea before the High Court arose out of a Build-Operate-Maintain contract dated October 17, 2012, for setting up a 5 MTPA coal washery near the Patherdih Washery.
Mivaan Steels has alleged multiple contractual breaches by Bharat Coking Coal Limited, including delay in handing over the project site, non-supply of utilities and substandard quality of coal. The company has sought release of a ₹13.16 crore bank guarantee and ₹11.9 crore retention amount.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by Mivaan Steels contending that delay in pronouncement of verdict by the High Court after conclusion of arguments was violative of right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Mivaan Steels relied on judgments in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar and Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra to submit that unexplained delay between hearing and judgment undermines public faith in the justice delivery system.
It further highlighted Rule 101 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001, which mandates that judgments reserved should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments, and if not pronounced within three months, be placed before the Chief Justice for reassignment.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioner assisted by advocates Misha Rohatgi, Nakul Mohta and Aditya Dhingra.